Show us the way to go green

Businesses
need to know what goals they will have to aim for, writes David Derbyshire.

Perched on top of a crumbling globe is a huge, leafless and apparently
dead tree. It's not, it has to be said, the most uplifting logo for
international talks on climate change.

Officials
in South Africa — who will welcome delegates from nearly 200 countries
tomorrow to the United Nations summit in Durban — say the tree is a
baobab, a species famed for its resilience.

Cynics
say it resembles a large piece of dead wood, a fitting symbol for talks
that have become mired in distrust, bureaucracy and inaction over the
past three years.

It's
fair to say that expectations going into Durban couldn't be lower.
Environmentalists, politicians and even the organisers concede that a
global deal on new carbon dioxide targets is years away.

Some
argue that the positions of America and China, the two largest emitters
of greenhouse gases, are so entrenched that a deal is unlikely in time
to prevent a catastrophic rise of more than 2C in world average
temperatures.

It
is not only the green movement that finds the lack of progress
frustrating. Increasingly, calls for international action on climate
change are coming from business leaders.

In
the past few months more than 180 companies, including Tesco, Unilever,
Philips and Kingfisher, have signed a communiqué calling on governments
to break the deadlock. "Businesses want a robust, effective agreement
out of Durban," said Eliot Whittington, director of the Corporate
Leaders' Group on Climate Change, which organised the communiqué.

"They
are looking to the long term, perhaps more than the average politician
who is possibly more concerned with the short-term economic situation
and will be tempted to put climate change into the bin marked 'too
difficult'."

The
most contentious issue facing the 20,000 delegates expected in Durban
is the future of the Kyoto protocol — the only legally binding global
agreement on emissions.

Under
the protocol, 37 of the richest countries must cut greenhouse gas
emissions by about 5% from their 1990 levels by the end of 2012.
Critics say the targets were too low, and the deal was meaningless
because America refused to ratify it.

Despite
the flaws, developing countries are clinging to Kyoto as the only legal
treaty for tackling climate change. They want a "second commitment
period" running from 2012. America and other developed nations, in
contrast, appear keen to bury Kyoto. Instead, they want a deal that
covers all countries, including China.

This
gulf between the rich and poor worlds was a key reason for the failure
of the Copenhagen summit in 2009 and remains the biggest obstacle to a
global deal.

In
the absence of a legally binding emissions target, the world has been
left with a series of voluntary pledges from governments.

"One
thing that has changed over the years is that increasingly you see
businesses calling for climate regulation, whether they are high-carbon
businesses or clean technology businesses," he said.

"Whether
you are building power stations, developing electric cars or planning
to build homes, the success of these investments depends on government
regulation or the lack of regulation. If there is uncertainty in the
regulatory outlook, this will limit low-carbon investments, and delay
investment more broadly."

Grant
said that a legally binding international target was not essential for
investors. Voluntary pledges under a UN framework, with proper
monitoring, and verification, would provide enough certainty.

His
view is similar to that of Sir David King, former government chief
scientific adviser and climate-change policy guru. Now director of
Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, he caused
ripples this summer by calling for the world to abandon thoughts of a
new Kyoto-style deal. Instead he wants a piecemeal system, where each
country acts to curb emissions without international targets.

"What
we are looking for out of Durban isn't progress on Kyoto — Kyoto is a
dead duck," King said.

There
are plenty of signs of governments and companies pressing on with plans
to slash carbon emissions without a global deal, he said.

Australia,
for example, is planning to introduce a cap and trade system for
emissions trading. Canada and Mexico are discussing something similar
for North America. China has announced carbon targets for the first
time, while firms such as Unilever are leading the way in private
sector emission cuts.

"What
these companies want is clarity over the longer term," said King. "The
private sector wants to make sure that, as it begins to invest heavily
in new green technologies, the investment isn't suddenly left high and
dry by a big change in government policy."

If
Kyoto part two is unlikely to be a success, hopes are higher for
progress on the new $100 billion (£64 billion) a year green climate
fund. That, too, is in danger, however, with the US rumoured to be
refusing to sign off on it. The fund is designed to help poor nations
adapt to the effects of climate change and invest in lowcarbon
technology.

There
is also likely to be progress on deforestation, which accounts for a
fifth of all carbon emissions.

Ruth
Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace UK, said that talk of Kyoto's
death was premature. "It is almost impossible to conceive of a
bottom-up approach to tackling climate change that could deliver the
scale and pace of change we need to avoid disaster," she said.

"Finding
a binding global solution is proving tough — but throwing away the
rulebook and hoping that something will turn up is not a mature
response to a growing crisis.

"Working
diligently to achieve a deal through the UN is — and it simply remains
the only game in town."